Use and abuse of a "mandate"

The frontline presidential hopefuls have gone on an unabashed spree of promises. There's not a passing day when promises are not tumbling out of their respective platforms. The range is wide. From free fertilizer for farmers matched the next day with free fertilizer for all agriculturists, to making devil dancing a part of the nation's heritage -- it's from the ridiculous to the even more ridiculous; some eclipsing the infamous promise of yesteryear to get rice "even from the moon".

One of the more significant promises that should not, however, be dismissed as a joke is what is contained in the election manifesto of the Opposition candidate from the SLPP. And that is, that the November 16 presidential election would be considered a mandate to dissolve Parliament “as early as possible”.

Tinkering with the people's “mandate” goes back some years. The 1970 Parliament was mandated for five years. The Government of the day extended the term by two years when it introduced the 1972 Republican Constitution, saying the five years began from that year -- not 1970. The leftist parties were part of that trickery.

The then Opposition Leader, J. R. Jayewardene, said Parliament from 1975- 77 was "illegitimate". Then in 1977 itself he argued that he had a “mandate” to introduce the Executive Presidency, and so that system came into being followed by a new Constitution which debarred the abolition of the Executive Presidency other than through a twothirds majority of the Legislature -- as well as a Referendum of the people. To cap it all, he then used the provision of the Referendum to extend the life of the 1977 Parliament, kicking the 1977 “mandate” to kingdom come, making what the 1970 Government did look like only a minor aberration.

Now, the SLPP says a victory at the November 16 polls will be taken as a mandate to dissolve Parliament, though the 19th Amendment prohibits any dissolution till February 2020 -- unless the sitting Government loses a vote of confidence in Parliament.

Parliaments being dissolved at the whim and fancy of the Head of Government have been the concern of Parliamentary democracies around the world. In Britain, they had to pass in 2011 a Fixed Term of Parliament Act prohibiting the prime minister from dissolving Parliament as and when he or she chooses and calling for an election when it suits the premier -- unless two- thirds of the House approved it.

Just last week, an embattled British PM tried to dissolve the House of Commons through that law, but when he failed he brought a short Bill this week and got it passed. The PM said that the people were being held hostage by a dysfunctional Parliament that could not decide on how to exit the European Union. What he could not do directly, he did indirectly. Leave it to them to find a way out -- politics is the art of the possible, after all. Many others think lunatics (MPs) had taken over the asylum (House of Commons).

In the Sri Lankan context, the Supreme Court held only last year that the Executive President had no right to sack his Prime Minister under 19A. The question that can lead to another constitutional crisis is if a new President tries to do that quoting a people's “mandate”. The only way would be to defeat the Government in a Parliamentary vote.

Until such time, a new President would have to work with the Prime Minister and his Government in ‘cohabitation'. That in itself could create an impasse and with neither major candidate emphasising the need to abolish the Executive Presidency post-November 16, tension at the helm of the country is a very real possibility. But, the bigger danger is when the “mandate” doctrine is used to bypass the Basic Law of the country.

More so, when matters contained in manifestos are only selectively used for political agendas and so much more in those very manifestos are conveniently thrown by the wayside -- like the abolition of the Executive Presidency has been.